I think there is no harm at all in this being an RFC and usingabstain to nitpick doesn't seem right (or ...

[Ballot comment]

I think there is no harm at all in this being an RFC and usingabstain to nitpick doesn't seem right (or at least, I don'tunderstand why the stated abstains aren't nitpicking).

2014-10-30

06

Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell

2014-10-30

06

Jari Arkko

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko

2014-10-30

06

Kathleen Moriarty

[Ballot comment]I don't see any mention of privacy concerns with ant of the elements suggested for the RDAP model in this draft. ...

[Ballot comment]I don't see any mention of privacy concerns with ant of the elements suggested for the RDAP model in this draft. Although I think the sec and response drafts should be the ones to state what actions can be taken, this one describes the elements that should be in the data model (but apparently doesn't match up exactly), so noting which are privacy sensitive might be helpful. I would have thought that was one of the motivators for this work, but that wasn't included in the description for section 1.

I do think this change should be made, but also think the changes are more important in the sec and response drafts.

2014-10-30

06

Kathleen Moriarty

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty

2014-10-30

06

Richard Barnes

[Ballot comment]I'm with Benoit and Alissa here. Not everything needs to be an RFC.

2014-10-30

06

Richard Barnes

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Richard Barnes

2014-10-30

06

Joel Jaeggli

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli

2014-10-29

06

Alissa Cooper

[Ballot comment]I'm with Barry -- this seems like it would have made more sense if published on a wiki, as a research paper, or ...

[Ballot comment]I'm with Barry -- this seems like it would have made more sense if published on a wiki, as a research paper, or in a slide deck. If the choices made in the protocol documents actually linked back to these findings for justification, I might see it differently, but at present there does not seem to be much connection between these findings and some of the design decisions made in the protocol. The data formats in the protocol don't seem to support every field that was discovered in this study, nor does there seem to be any consistent metric that was used for deciding whether to include a particular field based on its prevalence in these findings.

2014-10-29

06

Alissa Cooper

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper

2014-10-29

06

Martin Stiemerling

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling

2014-10-29

06

Barry Leiba

[Ballot comment]I see no value in publishing this document as an RFC. I think it would be great to keep the information in ...

[Ballot comment]I see no value in publishing this document as an RFC. I think it would be great to keep the information in the wiki for all to peruse, but I don't think anyone will want to read the RFC a year from now, much less several years from now. But I understand that this has been discussed and decided, so I will accept that I'm in the rough, and will abstain.

2014-10-29

06

Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Barry Leiba

2014-10-29

06

Benoît Claise

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise

2014-10-29

06

Brian Haberman

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman

2014-10-27

06

Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel

2014-10-27

06

Alia Atlas

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas

The IESG has received a request from the Web Extensible InternetRegistration Data Service WG (weirds) to consider the following document:- 'Registration Data Access Protocol Object Inventory Analysis' <draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-05.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicitsfinal comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to theietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-10-24. Exceptionally, comments may besent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain thebeginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

WHOIS output objects from registries (including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs)) were collected and analyzed. This document describes the statistical analysis process and result of existing WHOIS information. The purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to facilitate discussions of data objects included in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) responses.

WHOIS output objects from registries (including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs)) were collected and analyzed. This document describes the statistical analysis process and result of existing WHOIS information. The purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to facilitate discussions of data objects included in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) responses.

The document is seeking Informational status as it merely contains a summary of research done that justified design decisions made in other WEIRDS WG documents. It does not describe IETF process or any new protocol work, nor does it describe an experiment.

2. Review and Consensus

The document received light review, but its content is well understood by the entire working group, was presented and discussed during at least two meetings, and has always been non-controversial. I would describe the consensus as "good but quiet"; the WG had much more meaty things on which to focus.

Early discussion of the document centered around whether to publish it at all. After discussion with our Area Director who really forced the WG to consider that question, consensus of the WG is that this is useful work to record as it draws a line from WHOIS to RDAP explaining some of the choices found in other documents. It may also be referenced by ICANN work as their policies transition from WHOIS to RDAP.

No external reviews are warranted.

3. Intellectual Property

Four of the five authors have affirmed that they are submitting this document in compliance with BCPs 78 and 79. The fifth (Servin) has not responded yet.

There was no on-list discussion of IPR matters other than an explicit request by the WG co-chairs to disclose any IPR issues; none were reported.

4. Other Points

Nothing of note. No downrefs, no IANA actions.

The RFC Editor should be advised that the appendix tracking document changes should be deleted prior to publication.